Look what I discovered in my 22! 🤨

[2022 Mach 1]

So after reading 13 pages this is my take on this issue from the tuning standpoint...(when i get my car i will do testing) from what i remembered when i used to tune is that this is a maf car and as such the diameter of the maf housing is set in stone in the tune. If it was a map car this would be a moot point.

First the maf sensor is velocity based so by changing the housing size you are essentially changing a CONSTANT not a variable in the ECU's Math and maybe trip up the ecu a litttttttle( only 1 or 2 % iirc). It handles this with fuel Trims since it's only a small % increase most will never give any fu*ks about it TBH.

The maf sensors critical area is a few inches before and after the sensor that sticks out. The total mass air calculation works by taking the velocity of the air (MAF SENSOR) and using that info to look up in the "maf tables" corresponding info for how much air is coming into the engine in Grams Per Second, (G/S) and then that data is used to calculate fuel ratios etc......

So now you take the insert out and didn't tell the ecu it has a bigger housing so now all the calculations are off. As the total volume of air goes up(while the motor is ingesting air at a constant rate) that velocity will decrease as a % of the housing diameter increase.

That lower velocity will register as a less air coming in according to the maf sensor. then less fuel is commanded so you go a bit lean and STFT jump in as they always do and throw some fuel at it and if it works it ships the trim values it was using out to the LTFT so they can do the heavy lifting going forward and the STFT can return as close to 0 as possible in closed loop fueling.


As for the grid... cut that out... that is a air straightener. people used to run them on large intakes that had driveability issues do to air behavior and the walls of the tube. This application they serve no purpose.

Fu*k the carbon filter.

P.S. When someone makes a NO TUNE REQUIRED intake for a car they copy the oem maf diameter so if you put on a 2018+ intake it will be based on the 2018-2021 maf diameter and will be off just as much as removing that insert lol so you cant get away with just putting on a aftermarket intake and calling that 10hp returned...
that's just my 2 cents!

On the Mach 1 you pull the tube, remove the HC trap, and place tube back into the maf elbow. No change in diameter at that point.

As for the GT you're correct. Trim out the birds nest and remove e the HC trap that is pre air filter. Both of these ways do not change the MAF tube diameter.

Otherwise you're correct fuel trims will be off and I believe someone found that they are off by as much as 10%

Sponsored

 

[merlin803]

On the Mach 1 you pull the tube, remove the HC trap, and place tube back into the maf elbow. No change in diameter at that point.

As for the GT you're correct. Trim out the birds nest and remove e the HC trap that is pre air filter. Both of these ways do not change the MAF tube diameter.

Otherwise you're correct fuel trims will be off and I believe someone found that they are off by as much as 10%

In the case of the GT, does anyone know if the pre 22 air box lid would just fit on the existing 22 box (if we didn't want to cut out the 'birds nest' & wanted to keep an un-altered lid also)?

 

[Highvolts]

In the case of the GT, does anyone know if the pre 22 air box lid would just fit on the existing 22 box (if we didn't want to cut out the 'birds nest' & wanted to keep an un-altered lid also)?

You don't have to cut the frame out to remove the filter.

 

[merlin803]

You don't have to cut the frame out to remove the filter.

Yep, that is already gone. I was just wondering about 'birds next' part if someone wanted to get rid of it also without making a permanent change.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I wonder if European Mustangs have also got this redesigned carbon trap. In Europe the advertised power output hasn't changed in 2022; it's still 450 HP, as it was before. If this new-style carbon trap is indeed the cause of the 10 HP loss, then we should not have it here. If we do have it, then it isn't the culprit.
So, any 2022 Euro owners around? Let's settle this.

 

[young at heart]

Yep, that is already gone. I was just wondering about 'birds next' part if someone wanted to get rid of it also without making a permanent change.

merlin, by “birds nest” are you talking about the plastic lattice framework that held the filter?

 

[2022 Mach 1]

I wonder if European Mustangs have also got this redesigned carbon trap. In Europe the advertised power output hasn't changed in 2022; it's still 450 HP, as it was before. If this new-style carbon trap is indeed the cause of the 10 HP loss, then we should not have it here. If we do have it, then it isn't the culprit.
So, any 2022 Euro owners around? Let's settle this.

European cars have had them for years is my understanding. All mustangs since 2015 have had them, just not at this current size

 

[Vlad Soare]

European cars have had them for years is my understanding. All mustangs since 2015 have had them, just not at this current size

US vehicles didn't have them at all before 2022? I thought they had them in the same (smaller) size as Euro ones.
I will try to open mine up and take a picture tomorrow, to see if it's the same as a pre-2022 US one.

 

[merlin803]

merlin, by “birds nest” are you talking about the plastic lattice framework that held the filter?

Yep

 

[escossie]

This is from a post of mine in August - UK '22 GT - still the old style lid

This is my UK '22 airbox lid - looks like they left the UK cars alone this year after they were reduced to 450 HP in 2018 when GPF's were fitted

 

[pyrophilus]

https://www.basf.com/us/en/media/news-releases/2014/01/p-13-477.html

While this link does explain the tech/idea/theory to what Mdtaylorjr said (I too didn't know about this either and I was in agreement with Mdtaylorjr until I read this), reading it makes me realize that the <22 solution (the small rentable of filter material) is Ford's "discount BASF" way of implementing the "fix".

The article talks about a spray on coating that coats the inside surface of the airbox and how it turns the inner surface of the airbox into a passive absorbent surface.

So Ford decides to attach a tiny rectangle into the airbox to do something similar... it would probably catch enough leajing hydrocarbons that only a mass spectrometer can detect.

And then of course the "tack on filter rectangle" doesn't seem to work well enough (surprise, surprise), so they decide to force 100% of air flow (in both directions) to go through an additional filter material???

As a former biochemist, I appreciate that EPA has helped improve the air quality... but that being said, I feel like there are better ways/avenues to pursue to protect the quality of the air.

I know some people hate EVAP systems, but back in '09, my '05 pathfinder EVAP solenoid valve failed. I was too poor back then to be able to take it to dealer, so I ordered a new evap canister with solenoid online, and while waiting for delivery, I had the entire EVAP canister off. I had to park my car outside because of the gas fumes building up inside my garage...

Whatever happened to the middle ground? I feel like politics have turned completely binary, where it is either GOP and being extremely conservative or Dem and be completely liberal.

I hate when it comes to elections because I am not happy with either party or their candidates. This being said, I try to tell my students that they should learn science because if not anything else, they can try to make informed decisions based on what they interpreted from what they actually know instead of listening to the media and the masses.

Going back to this though, seriously...

Wouldn't it have been just as effective to place a solenoid with butterfly valve in the intake (before air filter), and when engine is off, just close the intake at the filter, and then have any exiting games from the engine intake get directed to this filter? So you'd get to trap 100% of those pesky minute hydrocarbons trying to escape from the intake side of the engine, but when engine is on, the valve would open and allow incoming air to go through the less restricted airbox???

I mean, heck this is already similar to how the evap canister in the rear operate... in fact, why not relocate the evap canister to the engine bay (since tube from gas tank to evap is small diameter), and then port the intake to the EVAP when the engine is off??????? I get that you would probably need incoming airflow to "un-saturate" the filtration material of the hydrocarbons, and I am guessing the filter works like O2 and Hemoglobin in blood where at high concentrations of target gas, the targeted gas molecules will jump on to the filter material, and at low concentrations of the gas (incoming air), it will jump off... so then have it go through a purge mode, where you run some additional incoming air through it to purge it, and then marry it to the intake, you'd actually INCREASE the incoming airflow by doing that, no? And you'd capture more of those pesky hydrocarbons when engine is off...

Does my '19 5.0 have the stupid tiny rectangle filter thing? If so, is it doing anything after 30k miles of use? Doubt it as my car sits in my driveway or at work longer (capture) than being driven (purge). This being said, would I remove it? Probably not because 460hp is way more than what I ever need and I doubt a tacked on rectangle inside my filterbox would impede too much incoming air mass, but if I had a '22, I would seriously consider removing it.

 

[AvalancheSVT]

1. the butterfly valve solenoid thing would be a retarded level of cost
2. you're 100% right about the power level. I have zero need for more speed so if that little filter isn't expensive i might even replace it when i need to.

i'm a few days into ownership and couldn't be happier with the sound tube delete/drop in K&N combo.

 

[askusmc]

Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Chicago, Atlanta, Chattanooga.......

Late 60's and mostly gone by the 90's.

Cleveland

 

[askusmc]

While this link does explain the tech/idea/theory to what Mdtaylorjr said (I too didn't know about this either and I was in agreement with Mdtaylorjr until I read this), reading it makes me realize that the <22 solution (the small rentable of filter material) is Ford's "discount BASF" way of implementing the "fix".

The article talks about a spray on coating that coats the inside surface of the airbox and how it turns the inner surface of the airbox into a passive absorbent surface.

So Ford decides to attach a tiny rectangle into the airbox to do something similar... it would probably catch enough leajing hydrocarbons that only a mass spectrometer can detect.

And then of course the "tack on filter rectangle" doesn't seem to work well enough (surprise, surprise), so they decide to force 100% of air flow (in both directions) to go through an additional filter material???

As a former biochemist, I appreciate that EPA has helped improve the air quality... but that being said, I feel like there are better ways/avenues to pursue to protect the quality of the air.

I know some people hate EVAP systems, but back in '09, my '05 pathfinder EVAP solenoid valve failed. I was too poor back then to be able to take it to dealer, so I ordered a new evap canister with solenoid online, and while waiting for delivery, I had the entire EVAP canister off. I had to park my car outside because of the gas fumes building up inside my garage...

Whatever happened to the middle ground? I feel like politics have turned completely binary, where it is either GOP and being extremely conservative or Dem and be completely liberal.

I hate when it comes to elections because I am not happy with either party or their candidates. This being said, I try to tell my students that they should learn science because if not anything else, they can try to make informed decisions based on what they interpreted from what they actually know instead of listening to the media and the masses.

Going back to this though, seriously...

Wouldn't it have been just as effective to place a solenoid with butterfly valve in the intake (before air filter), and when engine is off, just close the intake at the filter, and then have any exiting games from the engine intake get directed to this filter? So you'd get to trap 100% of those pesky minute hydrocarbons trying to escape from the intake side of the engine, but when engine is on, the valve would open and allow incoming air to go through the less restricted airbox???

I mean, heck this is already similar to how the evap canister in the rear operate... in fact, why not relocate the evap canister to the engine bay (since tube from gas tank to evap is small diameter), and then port the intake to the EVAP when the engine is off??????? I get that you would probably need incoming airflow to "un-saturate" the filtration material of the hydrocarbons, and I am guessing the filter works like O2 and Hemoglobin in blood where at high concentrations of target gas, the targeted gas molecules will jump on to the filter material, and at low concentrations of the gas (incoming air), it will jump off... so then have it go through a purge mode, where you run some additional incoming air through it to purge it, and then marry it to the intake, you'd actually INCREASE the incoming airflow by doing that, no? And you'd capture more of those pesky hydrocarbons when engine is off...

Does my '19 5.0 have the stupid tiny rectangle filter thing? If so, is it doing anything after 30k miles of use? Doubt it as my car sits in my driveway or at work longer (capture) than being driven (purge). This being said, would I remove it? Probably not because 460hp is way more than what I ever need and I doubt a tacked on rectangle inside my filterbox would impede too much incoming air mass, but if I had a '22, I would seriously consider removing it.

I removed the hydrocarbon filter on my 22 Mach 1

 

[LikeMike]

I removed the hydrocarbon filter on my 22 Mach 1

any noticeable differences?

Sponsored